Pistols at Dawn: A History of Duelling by John Norris | eBook

Read an Excerpt

Pistols at Dawn

A History of Duelling

By John Norris

The History Press

CHAPTER 1

Cause and Effect

What is the Duel?

Over the years there were literally thousands of duels fought with pistols, but only a fraction of those encounters were believed worthy of being actually recorded. Certainly the principals if they were noteworthy, such as politicians, officers or characters of public standing including town mayors; then the incident became the subject of newspaper accounts and even cartoons of the day. A number of so-called duels fought between lesser notable figures would have passed unnoticed and unrecorded unless, of course, it was reported that one of the participants was killed. In such cases a murder enquiry and trial would be convened. Statistics compiled from the same period can be ambiguous, but one set of figures examining some 200 duels fought in Ireland, Scotland and England tells us that only some 10 per cent of the participants came to trial. The historian Victor Kiernan states that duellists, '... could kill each other and go scot free, when a poor man could be hanged for stealing a few shillings'. This is, of course, entirely correct with English courts sentencing transportation to the colonies as an alternative punishment for such trivial crimes as stealing a loaf of bread, and public executions, even of young offenders, for stealing a sheep. The Italian 'Lothario' Giacomo Casanova fought a duel with Colonel Xavier Branicki of the Polish army in March 1766 as a result of being called a coward by the officer, even though duelling was illegal in Poland. The colonel shot Casanova in the hand but in return received a wound which entered his right side and passed through his abdomen. It was serious and it appeared that the officer was mortally wounded. In his shocked and weakened state Branicki, believing himself to be dying, uttered words of advice to Casanova by suggesting he make haste away, 'as you are in danger of the gibbet'. The great womaniser was apprehended but spared the hangman's noose by the personal intervention of the King of Poland. Colonel Branicki somehow survived his awful wound and made a full recovery. It was a close call for Casanova, who despite his reputation as a lover and seducer of women was no coward. The fact that the case against him was dismissed shows how unbalanced the judicial system could be when it came to hearing the cases of duelling.

Over the years duels have become romanticised due to novels and, more recently, films and television; dramatisations of romantic fiction have added to the perception that duels were invariably fought over affairs of honour. These modern depictions have been stylised to suit mass audiences and invariably show two men attempting to resolve their differences by engaging in a duel. The vision these recreations present is erroneous because they show honour being restored after an argument or insult. In truth there was nothing honourable about killing a man or maiming him for life. Death in a duel was very rarely instantaneous and the mortally wounded victims could linger for hours or days in the utmost agony – all for the sake of honour. This question of honour was either to preserve one's own social standing in society or to defend a lady's honour. Furthermore, the question of honour, like the insult itself, could be real or imagined. It permeated through society and affected some more than others who felt as though they had something to prove if they believed they had been insulted. The author Sir Walter Scott held the opinion that duels in Scotland were common during the 1730s because: 'the gentry were at once idle, haughty, fierce ...' Certainly they had much time on their hands and with their days filled with gambling on cards and horses, betting on boxing bouts and hunting, it was not surprising they took to duelling to settle differences of opinion arising from such matters. In Ireland the populace were equally bellicose and apt to hotheadedness, leading the landed gentry to indulge in duelling with pistols to the extent that it was almost akin to other forms of sport. Albeit a deadly interest, this sport was almost exclusively the preserve of the well-to-do for it was they who had the most time to spare in indulging in the lethal practice of duelling.

Some duelling encounters have become famous and others have become infamous due to the notoriety of the action and nature in which they were conducted. Duelling has a history which can be traced back to the earliest of military societies and reached its peak in the form of the joust and tournament during the medieval period, when sword, lance and mace were used. These expressions of fighting prowess originated in France around the eleventh century and developed into the mêlée which were in effect mini battles fought in front of an audience. These events evolved into the joust when popularity in the spectacle changed and the meetings became more organised and very formal affairs. Young men who had just been knighted would frequently travel from one joust meeting to another to gain valuable experience which could stand them in good stead for time of war. The joust was also where a man could win money or valuable prizes and even claim the possessions of the opponents they defeated. Jousts were well organised and it was possible for a knight to participate in a circuit of meetings and, depending on his success, his reputation would be enhanced. William Marshall, first Earl of Pembroke, 1147–1219, amassed a considerable fortune in such tournaments and his reputation was such that he was a favourite at the king's court. However, these meetings were not without their dangers and men were often maimed or killed during the joust. In June 1559 a joust was arranged to celebrate the Treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis which brought to an end the warring between France, Spain and Italy. The meeting was held in Paris at the rue Saint Antoine and scheduled to last for three days. It was attended by royalty and knights from across Europe, some of whom were entered in the tournament as participants.

Among the nobles taking up the lance as part of the celebrations was King Henry II of France. Such contests were not for the faint-hearted and kings had more to prove than anyone else when it came to showing courage. Their opponents in these bouts were not expected to show any leniency just because they were facing the king and were not inclined to pull the weight of the impact of the lance. On the last day of the contest in Paris the French king was faced by a captain of his bodyguard, Count de Montgomery, a young, well-spirited soldier. On the first encounter the king received a powerful blow from Montgomery's lance which almost threw him from his saddle. Henry demanded satisfaction and faced the captain again. As the lances crashed, a splinter from Montgomery's penetrated the visor of Henry's helmet and pierced one of the king's eyes and his temple. The badly injured monarch was taken to Chateau des Tournelles to have his wounds treated. But they were worse than expected. The king hung on to life for ten days until finally he died having endured great pain all that time. Kings believed they had to show they could hold their own in these contests, regardless of the dangers. The death of Henry II was unfortunate but not an isolated event during jousts; the nobility felt it necessary to prove themselves. For example, King Henry VIII of England was an ardent jouster in his youth and in 1524 during one tournament was very nearly killed. Not unnaturally the Church condemned jousting but despite the opposition it was still practised and remained popular. A huge event with over 600 noblemen attending was arranged at Carew Castle in Pembroke in Wales to celebrate Sir Rhys ap Thomas being appointed to the Order of the Garter in 1507.

The imagery of knights on horseback jousting entered public imagination as an age of courtesans and chivalry and there was an air of romanticism concerning two knights fighting for a lady's favour. Duels fought on horseback were among some of the earliest recorded which involved the use of pistols. The historian and author Frederick Wilkinson attributes this to the fact that large numbers of cavalrymen were armed with pistols. This may well have been the case, and certainly cavalrymen were prone to believe they were part of an elitist group. Sometimes this could be their undoing, but encounters with riders charging at one another and firing their pistols was in keeping with this idea of superiority. In truth, the chances of a mounted man hitting a target while moving, even at a gentle trot, is unlikely because the movement of the horse would not permit a steady aim to be taken. Some pistol duels were conducted on horseback in a fashion similar to the traditional joust with the barrier dividing the opponents. Some mounted duellists were known to load their pistols with several small pellets in an attempt to hit their opponent, very similar to the effect of a shotgun. It was during the early stages of the reign of King Charles I of England that one of the most unusual duels came to be fought on horseback.

Not long after his marriage to Henrietta Maria, Charles was being entertained by the Duke of Buckingham and as part of the festivities a dwarf by the name of Jeffery Hudson made his entrance by appearing from a large pie, much to the delight of Charles's young bride. In fact, so taken was she by this man who measured only 18in high that she asked him to join the Royal Court. As protocol of the day demanded, the Duke of Buckingham, not wishing to offend his Royal guests, respected the Queen's wishes and Hudson found himself a favourite of the Royal Court. The Queen nicknamed him 'Lord Minimus' and the king elected him to the rank of captain in the army. He amused his royal masters and was frequently used as a stooge for practical jokes and taunts about his size. Hudson accepted most of these in the course of good humour, but on one occasion a courtier went too far. According to the story, Hudson had been attacked by a large male turkey known as a 'stag' and very badly mauled by the bird. When word of the incident circulated around the court a young but portly officer called Charles Crofts made continual fun of the small man's plight. It was no doubt the endless puns which pressed Hudson to the point of breaking and challenged the officer to a duel. Some records state the officer was called Cross and was a courtier to the queen. The turkey incident involving Hudson should also be examined in a bit more detail. If it was indeed a stag turkey it would have been a wild variety, probably from stock brought back from the New World where the first colonies were being established in America. The bird would have undoubtedly been very aggressive, nowhere near the size of modern hybrid birds which can weigh in excess of 50lb, and would have been very mobile. The turkey would have probably weighed around 20lb, but coupled with its agility, natural aggressiveness and powerful claws, which it would have used to defend itself against predators, it was no wonder that Hudson, given his small stature of only 18in, was badly hurt. Anyone of normal stature who has had the misfortune of being attacked by a large bird such as a goose, which can weigh up to 14lb and use its wings to inflict painful bruises, will readily sympathise with the ordeal the diminutive Hudson must have endured.

Crofts' (or Cross depending on the account) remarks finally made Hudson retort by challenging him to a duel, which was something the officer did not expect. Allegedly he did not take the challenge seriously and turned up at the appointed hour unarmed. But Hudson was incensed and demanded the duel went ahead; to balance out the height difference between the two men the duel was to be fought on horseback. Crofts (or Cross) may have been an officer but Hudson too was an appointed officer by the king and, although lacking in stature, did not want for courage. At a signal the two men rode towards each other. Hudson fired, hitting his opponent in the chest and killing him. It was no mean feat of arms because firing from a moving horse to hit a moving target is very difficult. Nonetheless, his skill at arms failed to impress the king and he was banished from court. His life story in exile is extremely colourful with tales of being captured by pirates, imprisoned in Africa and other adventures along the way before returning to England more than twenty-five years after the duel. It was a much-changed country he came home to in the aftermath of the Civil War, but Jeffery Hudson has not been forgotten in Rutland where he lived in his later years; there they drink a beer named after the doughty dwarf.

Around 1650, less than one hundred years after the tragic death of King Henry II, a formal style of duelling emerged, probably from Italy and later popularised in France, with pistols eventually replacing swords. At this time Europe had just emerged from the bloody period known as the Thirty Years War (1618–48), a conflict which cost the lives of countless soldiers and civilians alike. In England the last stages of the Civil War between Parliament and the Royalist forces of King Charles I was being fought. Roaming the Continent and the British Isles were mercenaries, who were unemployed now the fighting was at an end, and soldiers whose services were no longer required. With no prospects and no pay, such itinerants took to crime and began to squabble among themselves with arguments being settled by impromptu duels.

Duelling as a form of expression may have found supporters and ardent enthusiasts but it was not wholeheartedly accepted. Emerging from the chaos of the Civil War, England was ripe for duelling with young men eager to prove themselves. Oliver Cromwell took a personal interest in the question of duelling and in June 1654 issued an edict condemning the practice. His opinions almost echoed the words of John Despagne's work Anti-duello which had appeared in 1632 and, as the title implies, was against all forms of duelling. Cromwell declared duelling to be a 'growing evil' and introduced severe penalties for anyone involved in a duel in any shape or form. For accepting or issuing a challenge to duel the penalty was six months in prison without being granted bail. All challenges to duel were to be informed to the authorities within 24 hours of receiving it, and failure to do so would be seen as tantamount to accepting the challenge. Fatalities arising from a duel would be classed as murder and as such a capital offence. Anyone involved in a duel in any shape or form would forever be banished from England.

What these draconian measures did was to make it clear that it was illegal to have anything whatsoever to do with duelling. In the eyes of the law there would be no mitigating circumstances and ignorance of the law was to be no excuse. Three years earlier in 1651, Members of Parliament had proposed that duellists should have their right hand chopped off, property confiscated and exiled. The penalties of Cromwell's laws which were passed may have been harsh but it is extremely unlikely that they stamped out duelling. The laws may actually have had the opposite effect by driving duelling underground. This is quite probable because several years later with the Restoration of the English monarchy in the form of King Charles II, following the death of Oliver Cromwell, there came a sudden outbreak of duelling. For a short period this state of affairs lingered until some semblance of calm returned as the country once more settled down after so many upheavals.

Duels had not always enjoyed the king's toleration. For example, during the reign of James I, Charles II's grandfather, a leading lawyer of the day, Sir Edward Coke, declared that 'to kill a man in a duel was murder, but there was no bar to sending a challenge or acting as a second.' King James I himself wrote a treatise against duelling and his attorney general, Francis Bacon, stated that he would prosecute should: 'any man appoint the field, though no fight takes place; if any man accept a challenge, or consent to be a second; if any man depart the realm in order to fight; if any man revive a quarrel after the late proclamation.' Again, strong words indeed which left no one in any doubt as to the illegality of the duel.

Royal opposition to duelling in England was made clear when King Charles II declared that any nobleman caught participating in a duel would be pursued with the 'utmost rigours of the court' and threatened with being excluded from the Royal Court, which was probably the worst fate which any courtier could suffer if he were seeking to advance himself. Being outside the king's circle of favourites left one vulnerable to any plot to seize his position or money.

In Spain laws were passed to prohibit duelling dating back to 1480, almost 200 years before duelling with pistols gained a widespread following. Italy too banned duelling and in France Cardinal Richelieu and his successor Cardinal Mazzarin banned duelling and passed edicts against the practice. As early as 1609 duelling was made a capital crime in France. Richelieu personally ordered the execution of two noblemen caught duelling. Frederick the Great of Prussia joined the ranks of those heads of state determined to stamp out forever the practice. He informed the officers of his army that if any wished to duel they had to obtain permission from him. When two officers met with the intention of conducting a duel, Frederick welcomed them to the appointed place of the duel where a gibbet had been erected. He informed them that he intended to hang the survivor of the affair. But even such stern measures did not prevent duelling and officers continued to meet clandestinely, often with the active knowledge and support of their fellow officers. In view of this there was really very little a monarch could do in the way of stopping duelling, and instead had to tolerate it. Duelling may not have flourished as with other fashionable events, such as boxing or horseracing, but the fact remains it was practised and each incident had to be dealt with as it became known.

(Continues...)

Excerpted from Pistols at Dawn by John Norris. Copyright © 2013 John Norris,. Excerpted by permission of The History Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Pistols at Dawn: A History of Duelling

eBook

Customer Reviews

Read an Excerpt

Pistols at Dawn

A History of Duelling

The History Press

Table of Contents

Contents

Recently Viewed

Pistols at Dawn: A History of Duelling

eBook

Customer Reviews

Read an Excerpt

Pistols at Dawn

A History of Duelling

The History Press

Table of Contents

Contents

Recently Viewed

Related Subjects